Realistic Tank aiming suggestions

Recommended Posts

Yea, I think that realistic concepts, potentially not period accurate stuff, should be used to hinder use(to make sure that in-game, you'd better have some skill), instead of being automatic. turret stabilization on modern vehicles, should still be automatic, IMO.

They were estimated at 1.5 klicks away. But we don't have Javelins(Redacted). they really can be hard to kill completely. when they're more than a kilometer away, sometimes you cry. a lot.

We sent waves of people to them. got a hill? you win, unfortunately.

The problems you're talking about are basically entirely because armor in the meta has no real counters at the moment. An AH-64 Apache can easily engage tanks at 8 km. Modern Ataka missiles are rated around 950mm of RHAe and 8 km range. A TOW 2B basically instantly destroys any tank with top-attack EFP and has a max range of 4500m, which is longer than the 4000m effective range of sabot. MPAT is even less than that, roughly 2000-2200m before it becomes subsonic and all wobbly. We don't have any real TDs like TOW Humvees or Spandrels either.

Yes, in the open against infantry/lighter vehicles with air superiority, a tank will handily destroy most things if it gets to shoot first. But you have to have fundamentally screwed up quite a bit for all of those things to be true in a theoretical Squad v1. Tanks should be relatively hard to come by in a 100 player game, no more than 1-2 tank platoons (3 western/modern tanks like an Abrams, 6-8 T64/T72s for opfor). With the presence of a few HATs, plenty of TOWs to be had at FOBs, effective CAS, and artillery that is available more than once every few hours the opportunity for a tank to really stretch its legs should be few and far between.

If you've ever played SB Pro PE (the real pro version is used to train crews around the world) you'll know just how easy it is to lose an entire battalion to an ill-fated march through a town of infantry or dense forest.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All the stuff I'm talking about is how modern FCSes work. Older stuff like the M60A3 or the T72A is much, much more complicated to use. The M60A3 in particular does need to have gun stabilization enabled and disabled on the fly, and the gunner is responsible for enabling/disabling cant compensation when the AFV is in motion.

And it's not like infantry can't fight back against tanks, give some of them Javelins and RPG-29s and the meta will work itself out. Lots of TDs like TOW Humvees, BRDM Spandrels, Shturm MTLBs, Stryker MGVs, etc... and the ability for things like artillery on call to disable the GPS/CITV/tracks/etc can easily make a realistic mechanic balanced.

I would also argue that much of the balance here comes down to map design. If you make a map that is like 73 Easting with literally nothing but desert then obviously infantry will just get destroyed by armor and air support. But a map like Al Basra with actual urban combat and a tank has no chance of doing anything deep in the city without immediately getting IEDed, RPGed, or hitting a mine.

M1A2 SEP turret front is roughly 950mm RHAe against sabot. M829A3 penetration roughly 840mm RHAe going by SB Pro PE stats. Realistically the likelihood that you penetrate the exact same place twice is very unlikely, and the armor isn't like a piece of glass where shooting it once shatters it to the point of uselessness.

I'm willing to bet that a modern tank can take multiple sabot hits to the turret front, especially at realistic engagement distances of 1+ km. Otherwise there is literally no reason for a tank to weigh 70 tons.

Actually modern composite ceramic armour is a bit like glass. Once hit, it won't sustain another hit very well because the ceramic tiles breaks.

The values you talk about probably also point to the very thickest point on the turret directly in the front. Mind you, all gunners try to aim between the turret and the hull whenever given the chance because armour is much weaker there. A sabot from the side or rear and you are guaranteed to be out of action.

To be honest I believe, even without penetration, the crew would be quite shook up and possibly a bit hurt from splinters and stuff coming off on the inside. They will probably have a hard time getting off a return round in time. Though not impossible of course.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I really dislike this concept "every type of asset should always have a fair chance in every situation at all times". This is why Battlefield sucks in the first place. Appropriate assets should be used to engage suitable assets. If your current asset type isn't appropriate for the mission, then call for the deployment of an appropriate asset to engage it. If you can't beat it you should stay hidden. This implies actually having to take strategic decision and not just running and gunning I-can-defeat everything style gameplay that totally waters out any game. It is the very reason I hate battlefield in the first place. As Squad is already, maps are already modified to not allow vehicles do much damage actually. Brushes and trees everywhere. Also if tanks are too powerful, have maps without tanks. Problem solved. Game is still very far from a simulator.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Actually modern composite ceramic armour is a bit like glass. Once hit, it won't sustain another hit very well because the ceramic tiles breaks.

The values you talk about probably also point to the very thickest point on the turret directly in the front. Mind you, all gunners try to aim between the turret and the hull whenever given the chance because armour is much weaker there. A sabot from the side or rear and you are guaranteed to be out of action.

To be honest I believe, even without penetration, the crew would be quite shook up and possibly a bit hurt from splinters and stuff coming off on the inside. They will probably have a hard time getting off a return round in time. Though not impossible of course.

Modern M1A2 SEP armor is DU-based, not ceramic. Spall liners are a thing, so are blast doors to keep ammo rack hits from killing the crew.

On 11/9/2018 at 7:33 PM, Serathis said:

There are no fire control systems apparently. Might make the game too easy for tankers to instantly get accurate shots on targets at 1200 meters.

By this logic we shouldn't give infantry MANPADs because that would make it too easy to take down helicopters.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regardless, it's not going to fall apart in any one engagement. Over the course of a campaign yes but Squad isn't simulating an entire war, just a single battle.

For the T72s lead compensation in modernized variants can be added and integrated into the LRF system, the complication of which would probably be an interesting mechanic for gunners to learn as it is fairly complex (you have to have good track before you lase, right ammo type must be indexed, you need to hold down the LRF to be able to see the number, etc...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Regardless, it's not going to fall apart in any one engagement. Over the course of a campaign yes but Squad isn't simulating an entire war, just a single battle.

For the T72s lead compensation in modernized variants can be added and integrated into the LRF system, the complication of which would probably be an interesting mechanic for gunners to learn as it is fairly complex (you have to have good track before you lase, right ammo type must be indexed, you need to hold down the LRF to be able to see the number, etc...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not sure exactly what you mean. They actually look too complex I might think. But I don't know what they look like in m1 real life.

The current sight is kind of an amalgamation of the real gunner primary sight and aux sight.

The real primary sight (GPS) looks like this:

The real aux sight (GAS) looks like this:

The CITV/commander sight looks like this:

The devs really don't have to do a ton of work to know what these things look like, SB Pro PE has limitations as a simulator but the models and textures is pretty much exactly what it is in real life. Obviously the devs should still use real world references to avoid copyright/trademark issues but there's nothing wrong with using prior art as a guide to know what to look for.